Playtest: Warlock Updates

[WalterKovacs]

I guess I see it this way:

I see this update as a chance to fix things that don't work as intended. But I don't think the Cha/Con starlock was ever even intended to be a viable build. The two OWarlock builds are Cha/Int or Con/Int, period. Starlocks were supposed to choose one of those and stick with it. It's implicit in the class writeup even if the V-class power structure confused the issue.

Further, I don't think granting Chainmail or Con-mod to AC is even enough to put a Cha/Con starlock on equal footing with the other builds. Even with the AC fix, they're still trading away most of the rider benefits (which are Int-based) for power selection flexibility. But with the current glut of powers, that's hardly a benefit at all. I think it'd still be a trap build (albeit a less painful one). I'd rather WOTC spend effort making the original Warlock builds not suck, rather than trying to wrestle some never-intended Starlock variant into half-viability. I think a Cha/Con warlock would be much better served by an entirely new sub-class or build, if that's a direction they really want to go.

I see it that way too. PHB1 made the problem worse because the only at-will for the starlock was Con and the only paragon path was charisma based. They eventully made an 'all con' build viable with additional paragon paths over time, but a charisma based starlock is effectively stuck with only one at-will attack (unless they are a human, half-elf, or paragon multiclass). So, either making dire radiance optional stat or making an alternate charisma based attack they can choose, would be the easiest way to make it possible to build the class with an ok Int instead of pumping Con to make the at-will subpar instead of worthless.

 

[Destil]

Star Pact really, really wants to be a fully working pact. Powers are still split between Con and Cha and have Int for kickers, nevermind AC. This just dosn't work, and this is coming from one of the rare players who likes "V shaped" classes conceptually (Psion should have been Int|Cha in my mind).

The Con Int build works, but the highest level encounter power they can use and get a pact bonus for is 13th. If you're playing high level may as well have just been a Infernal Warlock, because this is where all of your encounter powers are coming from and then you could get the kickers to work on your encounters.

The Cha-Con starlock can hit, but they don't get much if anything from the starlock kickers so they may as well just take the best power from any pact.

A Cha-Int starlock has lots of powers with great kickers and an at will that they can't hit with.

Ideally any power that had a star-pact specific, Int based kikcer should use Con or Cha, but Dire Radiance is by far the biggest offender. Even one encounter per tier allowing both would be a big boon. The best way to fix this is to make all their encounter powers use either Cha or Con. This also applies to Doomsayer powers.

 

[Xyrlove Woodsoul]

At the end of the document where it lists all the changes, it states that "Hurl through Hell," damage has been reduced, and the teleportaion keyword has been cut. But I see that the "teleportation" keyword is still noted in the power block. I just thought I'd point that out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hm.

The only problems i've had hitting with my Con-Cha warlock- who, incidentally has an Int just slightly lower than those- would not have been helped by a single stat 2 points higher.

 

[Zaphling]

I second to the Con or Cha based Dire Radiance wagon.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I second to the Con or Cha based Dire Radiance wagon.

Don't just tell us; tell them.

Once you’ve had a chance to review and playtest the material, please send your feedback to "playtesting at wizards dot com" with the subject line “Warlock Playtest” by June 17.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

How are these changes going to interact with stuff that has been published since PHB1? I'm thinking of feats like Sacrifice to Caiphon.

Boosted damage on a hit- possibly with damage from a miss- coupled with reuse on a miss due to StC...might this not be a touch too much?

 

[Aegeri]

How are these changes going to interact with stuff that has been published since PHB1? I'm thinking of feats like Sacrifice to Caiphon.

Boosted damage on a hit- possibly with damage from a miss- coupled with reuse on a miss due to StC...might this not be a touch too much?

No because Warlocks are already on the low end of the damage scale, they are desperately needing a boost back up to other strikers. Due to their inability to get a lot of out of turn or minor action attacks, Warlocks are in no threat of being imbalanced.

 

[On Puget Sound]

I sent my mail to playtesting @ wizards . com - have you? If we want them to get it right, we need them to hear us.

 

[thewok]

Also, they should remove the pact descriptors from the power names, for the same reason they did so with Arcane Power (leaving it on ones with pact-specific kickers would be fine).

The problem with this is that there are some effects which key off of the pact that a spell belongs to. Specifically, I'm referring to the Rod of the Infernal and its Star- and Fey-pact equivalents. Removing pact descriptors would make those rods much less worthwhile.

This wouldn't be too big of a problem, except that these rods are generally the only rods worth taking for a Hexblade. It seems that almost every other rod either keys off of the Warlock's Curse feature that Hexblades do not have, or it is designed for invokers.

I think if they're "fixing" the warlock, they really need to take a look at the rods and pretty much completely rebuild them all (or most of them) to make them useful for the Binder and Hexblade as well as the core Warlock. But that's beyond the scope of this article.